THE BRANCH MANAGER vs PARVATHY

C.M.A.(MD).No.342 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On 24.09.2026
Pronounced On 02.11.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
CMA(MD) NO. 342 of 2019
{CNR: HCMD010303752019} Case
QR
The Branch Manager,
The United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Thirumangalam Road,
Thirunagar,
Madurai. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Parvathy
2.Senthil Kumar ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988, to set aside the order passed by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai in M.C.O.P. No.1026 of
2017 dated 22.11.2018 as against the appellant and allow the appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Murugavel
For Respondents : Mr.R.Sundararaj for R1
: R2 Died
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:18:51 pm )

C.M.A.(MD).No.342 of 2019
J U D G M E N T
The second respondent in M.C.O.P. No.1026 of 2017, on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai has filed
the present C.M.A.(MD).No.342 of 2019, challenging the award dated
22.11.2018 passed in M.C.O.P. No.1026 of 2017.
2.Facts of the case:
2.1.The claimant is a construction coolie worker. According to her, on
05.11.2005 at about 10.30 p.m., after completing her work, she was travelling
along with her husband in an auto-rickshaw bearing Registration No.TN-59-Q-
5972 on the Usilampatti–Theni Road. At that time, the offending mini lorry
bearing Registration No.TN-60-5925 was driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the auto-rickshaw. In the accident, the
claimant sustained grievous injuries, particularly to her right hand, besides
injuries to other parts of the body.
2.2.Immediately thereafter, she was admitted in the Government Rajaji
Hospital, Madurai on 06.11.2005 and underwent treatment till 01.03.2006.
According to her, owing to the serious injury sustained to her right hand, she
was unable to attend to her normal day-to-day activities and was also unable to
continue her avocation as a construction coolie.
2.3.The claimant further stated that, owing to her poverty, ignorance and
2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:18:51 pm )

C.M.A.(MD).No.342 of 2019
lack of proper guidance regarding the legal remedies available to her, she could
not approach the Claims Tribunal immediately. Consequently, she filed the
claim petition only on 04.07.2017, nearly twelve years after the accident,
claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation with interest.
2.4.The Insurance Company filed a counter disputing the claim and,
principally, contended that the claim petition was hopelessly barred by
limitation. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in the case of Purohit and Company v. Khatoon Bee and another
reported in (2017) 4 SCC 783 . The Insurance Company also disputed the
manner of the accident, the nature and extent of the injuries and the quantum of
compensation claimed by the claimant.
2.5.Before the Tribunal, on the side of claimant, the claimant examined
herself as P.W.1 and examined the doctor as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P11 were marked
on her side. The disability certificate was marked as Ex.C1, while Exs.X1 and
X2, including the treatment records and treatment register, were produced
through the concerned medical witness. There is no oral (or) documentary
evidence adduced on the side of the respondents.
3.Findings of the Tribunal:
3.1.Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the
3/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:18:51 pm )

C.M.A.(MD).No.342 of 2019
Tribunal fixed negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a
sum of Rs.6,09,245/- as compensation.
3.2.The Tribunal initially awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of the claim petition. However, considering the peculiar
circumstances surrounding the belated filing of the claim petition, the interest
was directed to be calculated only from the date of the award, i.e., 22.11.2018.
Sl.No. Heads Amounts in Rs.
1 Loss of income (Partial
Permanent Disability
60%)
5,44,000/-
2 Medical expenses as per
Ex.P.9
8,245/-
3 Pain and sufferings 30,000/-
4 Extra Nourishment 20,000/-
5 Transportation expenses 1,000/-
6 Damage to clothing and
accessories
1,000/-
7 Person who was
accompained during the
medical treatment
5,000/-
Total Compensation Awarded Rs.6,09,245/-
3.3.Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant / Insurance Company has
preferred the present appeal.
4.Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the
4/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:18:51 pm )

C.M.A.(MD).No.342 of 2019
appellant/Insurance Company:
4.1.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company
submitted that the claim petition was filed nearly twelve years after the accident
and was therefore liable to be rejected on the ground of limitation. Placing
reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of
Purohit and Company v. Khatoon Bee and another reported in (2017) 4 SCC
783 , it was contended that such a stale claim ought not to have been entertained
by the Tribunal. It was therefore argued that the award passed against the
Insurance Company is liable to be set aside.
4.2.The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the
Tribunal had assessed 100% loss of earning capacity, whereas the disability
certificate assessed the claimant's partial permanent disability only at 60%.
According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal ought not to have mechanically
treated the physical disability as equivalent to 100% loss of earning capacity.
5.Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/claimant:
5.1.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted
that the claimant is a indigent and illiterate woman who was working as a
construction coolie. She had sustained a serious injury to her right hand and had
5/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:18:51 pm )

C.M.A.(MD).No.342 of 2019
undergone prolonged treatment from 06.11.2005 to 01.03.2006. Owing to her
poverty, lack of legal knowledge and absence of proper guidance, she could not
approach the Tribunal within a reasonable period.
5.2.It was further submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor
intended to defeat any legitimate defence of the Insurance Company. The FIR,
Motor Vehicle Inspector's report and medical records relating to the treatment
of the claimant were available. The claimant had also produced the relevant
records before the Tribunal through competent witnesses. Therefore, no
prejudice had been caused to the appellant on account of the delay.
5.3.Learned counsel further submitted that the claimant was a
construction coolie and her right hand had been seriously damaged. Having
regard to the nature of her avocation, the functional disability was much higher
than the percentage of physical disability mentioned in the disability certificate.
Since she could not effectively use her right hand for carrying out the work of a
construction coolie, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the loss of earning
capacity at 100%.
6.Points for Consideration:
6.1.The following questions arise for consideration in the present appeal:
(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in entertaining the claim petition
6/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:18:51 pm )

C.M.A.(MD).No.342 of 2019
filed nearly twelve years after the accident?
(ii) Whether the assessment of compensation, particularly the assessment
of loss of earning capacity, calls for interference?
7.Discussion and findings:
Point No.(i) – Delay in filing the claim petition:
7.1.The accident occurred on 05.11.2005, whereas the claim petition was
presented on 04.07.2017. There is, therefore, a substantial delay of nearly
twelve years.
7.2.It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Purohit and
Company vs. Khatoon Bee and another, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 783 ,
considered the question relating to stale claims and the statutory limitation
applicable to claims under the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the question
whether a belated claim is liable to be rejected cannot be decided in isolation
from the facts and circumstances of the individual case, particularly where the
claimant places material before the Court explaining the circumstances for the
delay and where the delay has not caused prejudice to the opposite party.
7.3.In the present case, the background of the claimant assumes
significance. She was a indigent woman working as a construction coolie. The
evidence discloses that she sustained a serious injury to her right hand and
7/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:18:51 pm )

C.M.A.(MD).No.342 of 2019
remained under treatment from 06.11.2005 to 01.03.2006. The nature of the
injury and the prolonged treatment are supported by the medical records
produced before the Tribunal.
7.4.More importantly, the delay has not resulted in the obliteration of the
material evidence necessary for adjudication of the claim. The FIR relating to
the accident was available. The Motor Vehicle Inspector's report was also
available. The treatment records relating to the claimant were produced before
the Tribunal, and the concerned medical evidence was adduced. The claimant
herself was examined as P.W.1 and the doctor was examined as P.W.2.
7.5.Thus, the Tribunal had before it the material evidence necessary to
determine the occurrence of the accident, the negligence, the nature of the
injuries, the treatment undergone by the claimant and the resultant disability.
The appellant has not demonstrated that, merely because the claim petition was
filed belatedly, any material evidence had been lost or that any specific
prejudice had been caused to its defence.
7.6.The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation intended to provide
just compensation to victims of motor accidents. At the same time, a claimant
cannot be permitted to explain every delay merely by referring to poverty or
lack of legal knowledge. The explanation must be considered in the factual
context of each case.
8/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:18:51 pm )

C.M.A.(MD).No.342 of 2019
7.7.In the present case, the claimant's status as a poor construction
worker, the serious injury suffered by her right hand, the prolonged treatment
from 06.11.2005 to 01.03.2006, and the availability of the material
contemporaneous records are relevant circumstances. The Tribunal has also
taken note of the peculiar circumstances while directing that interest should be
calculated only from the date of the award, namely, 22.11.2018.
7.8.In these peculiar facts and circumstances, the delay by itself cannot be
treated as sufficient to non-suit the claimant, particularly when the appellant has
not established any prejudice caused to its defence and the claim has been
adjudicated on the basis of the available evidence.
7.9.Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal entertaining the claim petition
does not warrant interference.
8.Point No.(ii) – Loss of Earning Capacity
8.1.The next contention of the appellant concerns the assessment of 100%
loss of earning capacity, whereas the disability certificate assessed the
claimant's partial permanent disability at 60%.
8.2.The percentage of physical disability cannot, in every case, be
mechanically equated with the percentage of loss of earning capacity. The
relevant consideration is the effect of the disability upon the claimant's capacity
9/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:18:51 pm )

C.M.A.(MD).No.342 of 2019
to perform the particular avocation in which she was engaged.
8.3.In the present case, the claimant was working as a construction coolie.
The injury is to her right hand, which is an important and essential limb of the
body for performing manual construction work. The medical evidence and
treatment records disclose the seriousness of the injury and the prolonged
treatment undergone by the claimant.
8.4.Therefore, even though the disability certificate assessed the physical
disability at 60%, the Tribunal was entitled to examine the functional impact of
the injury on the claimant's actual avocation. However, the assessment of
functional disability must necessarily be supported by the medical and
occupational evidence available on record.
8.5.The Tribunal, consequently assessed the loss of earning capacity at
100%.
8.6.This Court has to find out whether 100% disability is correct?
8.7.There is no sufficient material on record to establish that the claimant
had become completely incapable of pursuing any avocation whatsoever.
Therefore, the assessment of 100% loss of earning capacity made by the
Tribunal, though understandable having regard to the nature of her manual
occupation and the injury to the right hand, is on the higher side.
10/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:18:51 pm )

C.M.A.(MD).No.342 of 2019
8.8.Having regard to the nature of the claimant's avocation, the injury
sustained, the medical evidence and the 60% partial permanent disability
assessed by the competent medical board, this Court considers it appropriate to
assess the functional loss of earning capacity at 80% instead of 100%.

8.9.Accordingly, the compensation towards loss of earning capacity is
recalculated as follows:
Rs.3,000 × 12 × 15 × 80% = Rs.4,32,000/-
8.10.The compensation awarded under the remaining heads does not
warrant interference. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal are therefore
confirmed as follows:
Sl.No Heads Amount
awarded by
the Tribunal
Rs.
Re-quantified
amount by
this Court
Rs.
Status
1 Loss of
income
5,44,000/- 4,32,000/- Reduced
2 Medical
expenses
8,245/- 8,245/- Confirmed
3 Pain and
sufferings
30,000/- 30,000/- Confirmed
4 Extra
Nourishment
20,000/- 20,000/- Confirmed
5 Transportatio
n expenses
1,000/- 1,000/- Confirmed
11/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:18:51 pm )

C.M.A.(MD).No.342 of 2019
6 Damages for
Cloth and
Articles
1,000/- 1,000/- Confirmed
7 Attendant
charges
5,000/- 5,000/- Confirmed
Total 6,09,245/- 4,97,245/- Reduced
9.Result:
9.1.Accordingly, C.M.A.(MD).No.342 of 2019 is partly allowed .
9.2.The award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in
M.C.O.P. No.1026 of 2017 dated 22.11.2018 is modified and the compensation
is hereby reduced from Rs.6,09,245/- to Rs.4,97,245/-, together with interest at
the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition.
9.3.The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified
reduced award amount of Rs.4,97,245/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum from 22.11.2018, the date of the award, till the date of deposit, after
adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited.
9.4.On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same,
together with accrued interest and costs, in accordance with law.
No order as to costs.
02.11.2026
12/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:18:51 pm )

C.M.A.(MD).No.342 of 2019
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
aas
To
1.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Madurai.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
13/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:18:51 pm )

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
aas
C.M.A.(MD).No.342 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:18:51 pm )